How many judgments cite CIT v. R. Lingmallu Raghukumar?

20 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. R. Lingmallu Raghukumar (247 ITR 801), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. R. Lingmallu Raghukumar come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 45(4), Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 28(\u03bd), Section 292C, Section 50D.

CIT v. R. Lingmallu Raghukumar

247 ITR 801Supreme Court of India2001#5730 most cited

What is CIT v. R. Lingmallu Raghukumar authority for?

Consideration paid to a retiring partner, even if it exceeds the balance in their capital account, is not chargeable to tax as it does not constitute a 'transfer'.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. R. Lingmallu Raghukumar · 247 ITR 801 SC · retiring partner · goodwill · capital account · transfer · not taxable · Section 45(4)

Sections most often in play

Section 45(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A Section 28(\u03bd)Section 292C Section 50D Section 54F Section 69

Judgments citing CIT v. R. Lingmallu Raghukumar

Hemant Naresh Agarwal, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir. 4, Surat

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 170/SRT/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआ.(खो और ज).सं /It(Ss)A No.68 & 70/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2018-19 (Physical Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Hemant Naresh Agarwal बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, 701, Shree Shyam Awas, Bhatar Vs. Surat Room No.508, 5Th Floor, Road, Near Vidhya Bharti School, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Surat-395 010 Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Auppa 9003 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.170/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hemant Naresh Agarwal Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 701, Shree Shyam Awas, Bhatar Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Road, Near Vidhya Bharti School, Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Surat-395 010 Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Auppa 9003 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Kiran K. Shah राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr & Shri Kevin Langaliya, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 292CSection 69

…irm and receives consideration in terms of money which includes proportionate share of goodwill therein, the same is not taxable as there is no ‘transfer’. Relying on Mohanbhai Pamabhai, the Apex Court had in the case of CIT vs. R.Lingamallu Raghukumar (2001) 247 ITR 801 (SC) held that even if consideration paid to retiring partner, exceeds the balance in its capital account, the same shall not be chargeable to tax. The amendment vide Finance Act 2021 was brought in Section 45(4) to enlarge the Scope of Section 45(4) by going beyond the original object for which same was enacted and in doing so reversing the lega…

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Jayshree Shailesh Savla, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal o

ITA 2304/MUM/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Jayshree Shailesh Savla, Room No. 216, 2Nd Floor, A/7, Mani Bhavan, Swastik Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Society N S Road, No. 3, Bandra East, Vile Parle, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400056. Pan No. Aksps 2546 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: None

Section 54F

…hanbhai Pamabhai, CIT, (1985) 156 ITR 509 (SC). Relying on Mohanbhai Pamabhai, the Apex Court had in the case of CIT v. R.Lingamallu the Apex Court had in the case of CIT v. R.Lingamallu the Apex Court had in the case of CIT v. R.Lingamallu Raghukumar, (2001) 247 ITR 801 (SC) held that even if Raghukumar, (2001) 247 ITR 801 (SC) held that even if Raghukumar, (2001) 247 ITR 801 (SC) held that even if consideration paid to ret consideration paid to retiring partner, exceeds the balance in its iring partner, exceeds the balance in its capital account, the same shall not be chargeable to tax. A similar capital accoun…

ACIT(Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Raunak Maru, Indore

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 27/IND/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

…ntinuing partner and accordingly the amount received by the retiring partner is not assessable as taxable income. For this proposition I find support from the following judicial pronouncements: 1. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs R. Lingmallu Raghukumar, (2001) 247 ITR 801 (SC) – In this case before the Honourable Supreme Court, earlier the Hon’ble High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the department against the decision of the Honourable Andhra Pradesh High Court. The question of law before the Honourable High Court was whether the amount received by the assessee on retirement from the partnership firm is a…

ACIT(Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Rajul Bhargava, Indore

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 26/IND/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

Synchem Chemicals (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2753/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 45

…urt affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 165 ITR 166 (SC) c. Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai vs. CIT reported in 156 ITR 509 (SC) d. Decision of Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. R. Lingmallu Raghukumar reported in 247 ITR 801(SC) 10. We find that during the impugned assessment year, the assessee retired from the partnership firm and received amount standing to its credit in the books of the partnership firm. Much prior to the retirement i.e. on 01/04/2007, the firm re-valued its asset i.e "Development rights in land" which resulted in appreciation of Rs.262,12,92,699/…

M/S Multiventure Financial Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 3 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4882/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Aggarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhala, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(47)

…e issue has been settled by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, we find merit in the appeal of the assessee. The Hon'ble Apex Court, as discussed by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid case also, in CIT vs. R. Lingamallu Rajkumar (2001), 247 ITR 801, held that amounts received on retirement by a partner is not subject to capital gains tax. Our view is also fortified by the decision by the Coordinate Bench in ACIT vs. Shri N. Prasad, Executive Chairman, Secunderabad (ITA No.1200/Hyd/2010) order dated 27/01/2014. 2.6. However, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CITvs Dynamic Enterprises, whil…

ITO - 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Multiventure Financial Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3715/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Aggarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhala, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(47)

Anik Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 40, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 7189/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7189/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) M/S. Anik Industries Ltd. Dcit-Central Circle -40 बनाम/ 610, Tulsiani Chambers Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm-2696-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5234/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) M/S. Anik Industries Ltd. Dcit-Central Circle -40 बनाम/ 610, Tulsiani Chambers Mumbai. Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm-2696-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 17/01/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 19/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar-Ld. DR

Section 143(3)

…approval the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Mohanbhai Pamabhai's case (supra) and held that there is no transfer upon the retirement of a partner upon the distribution of his share in the net assets of the firm. In CIT v. R. Lingmallu Raghukumar [2001] 247 ITR 801, the Supreme Court held, while affirming the principle laid down in Mohanbhai Pamabhai that when a partner retires from a partnership and the amount of his share in the net partnership assets after deduction of liabilities and prior charges is determined on taking accounts, there is no element of transfer of interest in the partnership assets by…

Rahas Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2752/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Lupin Investments Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited (Successor To Income Tax, 10(1) Rahas Investments Private Aayakar Bhavan Limited M.K.Road, 159, Cst Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Kalina, Santacruz(E) Mumbai – 400 098 Pan/Gir No.Aaacr3202L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Lupin Investments Private Income Tax, 10(1) Limited (Successor To Rahas Aayakar Bhavan Investments Private Limited M.K.Road, 159, Cst Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Kalina, Santacruz(E) Mumbai – 400 098 Pan/Gir No.Aaacr3202L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Hemen Chandariya Revenue By Shri Padmapani Bora Date Of Hearing 08/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 05/02/2020

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 45

…d by the Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai [165 ITR 166 (SC)], the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Sunil Siddharthbhai Vs. CIT [156 ITR 509 (SC)], as also the decision of the Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. R. Lingmallu Raghukumar [247 ITR 801 (SC)] would have to be examined. Since this has not been done at the level of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that it would be a better option that the Tribunal at first instance undertakes such exercise. Only on this around, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside. The Tribunal is requested to decide the appeals afresh on merits a…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune vs. Abhay Sadashiv Gadgil, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1652/PUN/2017[ 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2019

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.R. BhagwatFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Deogadkar

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 45Section 45(1)

…he case of Sudhakar Shetty(supra). The appellant thereafter, cited a number of decisions in the submission quoted above inter-alia contended that after the decision of Sudhakar Shetty (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lingmallu Raghukumar, 247 ITR 801 had ruled that amount received by a partner on retirement is not taxable under the head of taxable. The appellant also referred to the Pune Tribunal decision in the case of Riyaz A Shaikh (supra) which was decided in favour of the said assessee but Department went in appeal before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in another judgment in the case of R…

Mdlr Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8215/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 142Section 144Section 153ASection 264

…approval the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Mohanbhai Pamabhai's case (supra) and held that there is no transfer upon the retirement of a partner upon the distribution of his share in the net assets of the firm. In CIT v. R. Lingmallu Raghukumar [2001] 247 ITR 801 , the Supreme Court held, while affirming the principle laid down in Mohanbhai Pamabhai that when a partner retires from a partnership and the amount of his share in the net partnership assets after deduction of liabilities and prior charges is determined on taking accounts, there is no element of transfer of interest in the partnership assets by…

Mdlr Builders P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8214/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 142Section 144Section 153ASection 264

…approval the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Mohanbhai Pamabhai's case (supra) and held that there is no transfer upon the retirement of a partner upon the distribution of his share in the net assets of the firm. In CIT v. R. Lingmallu Raghukumar [2001] 247 ITR 801 , the Supreme Court held, while affirming the principle laid down in Mohanbhai Pamabhai that when a partner retires from a partnership and the amount of his share in the net partnership assets after deduction of liabilities and prior charges is determined on taking accounts, there is no element of transfer of interest in the partnership assets by…

Smt. Savitri Kadur, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 1700/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 2(47)Section 45Section 54E

…lahabad) 122-125 7 ACIT Vs. Sri Mahinderpal Bhasin [1979] 117 ITR 26 (Allahabad) 126-129 8 CIT Vs. Krishnamoorthy [1998] 229 ITR 559 (Madras) 130-132 9 CIT Vs. L Raghu Kumar [1982] 141 ITR 674 (Andhra Pradesh) 133-136 10 CIT Vs. Lingmallu Raghukumar [2001] 247 ITR 801 (SC) 137-138 11 Tribhuvandas G Patel Vs. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 515 (SC) 139-141 12 CIT Vs. P.N Panjawani [2012] 356 ITR 676 (Karnataka) 142-152 13 CIT Vs. G Seshagiri Rao [1992] 65 Taxman 409 (Andra Pradesh 153-155 14 ACIT Vs. Unity Care & Health Services [2006] 103 ITD 53 (Bangalore) 156-162 15 ITO Vs. Prabhuraj B Appa [2006] 6 SOT 415 (Bangalo…

Smt. Rama S. Gummadi vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)

ITTA/207/2005HC Telangana14 Nov 2017

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

For Appellant: Dr. C.P. RamaswamyFor Respondent: Sri K. Raji Reddy

Section 47

…llu Raghukumar (3 supra) reveals that the assessee was a partner and retired from the partnership firm after receiving the excess amount of Rs.46,500/-. This 1 (1983) 141 ITR 674 2 162 ITR 420 3 (2001) 247 ITR 801 CVNR, J & KVL, J I.T.T.A. No.207 of 2005 4 Court in Lingamallu Raghu Kumar (1 supra) held that there was no transfer of any assets defined in Clause (ii) of Section 47 of the Act. In arriving at this conclusion, this Court had relied upon the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai4. Referring to the abov…

Kaushalya R Sampat, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3609/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Mrs. Kaushalya R. Sampat Income Tax Officer, Flat No.1A, Hill Top Society, 9(3)(2),Piramal Chambers, Pali Hill Road, Bandra(W) Vs. Lalbaug,Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400050 Pan No.Aaqps06609F Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By .. Shri. K.Gopal, Ar Revenue By .. Shri. M.V. Rajguru, Dr Date Of Hearing .. 05-01-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 05-01-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 133ASection 144Section 148Section 68

…) rendered by this Court and its reversal by the Apex Court. Moreover, the decision of this Court in the case of Prashant S. Joshi (supra) placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s. R. Lingamallu Rajkumar reported in [2001] 247 ITR 801, wherein it has been held that amounts received on retirement by a parnter is not subject to capital gains tax. In the above circumstances, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law.” 8. Further, the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the assessee on judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prashant S. Joshi…

Ramesh Builders, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

ITA 1798/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Ramesh Builders (India), Income Tax बनाम/ 9, Dhiraj Chambers, Officer,12(1)(2),Aayakar V. 9, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Bhavan,M.K. Road, Fort,Mumbai – 400001. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaafr4655E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr. Mukesh Jain,DR

Section 143(3)Section 45(4)

…approval the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Mohanbhai Pamabhai's case (supra) and held that there is no transfer upon the retirement of a partner upon the distribution of his share in the net assets of the firm. In CIT v. R. Lingmallu Raghukumar [2001] 247 ITR 801 , the Supreme Court held, while affirming the principle laid down in Mohanbhai Pamabhai that when a partner retires from a partnership and the amount of his share in the net partnership assets after deduction of liabilities and prior charges is determined on taking accounts, there is no element of transfer of interest in the partnership assets by…

Ramesh Builders (India), Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Ramesh Builders(India) in ITA N0

ITA 1797/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

For Respondent: Dr. Mukesh Jain,DR

Section 143(3)Section 45(4)

…approval the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Mohanbhai Pamabhai's case (supra) and held that there is no transfer upon the retirement of a partner upon the distribution of his share in the net assets of the firm. In CIT v. R. Lingmallu Raghukumar [2001] 247 ITR 801 , the Supreme Court held, while affirming the principle laid down in Mohanbhai Pamabhai that when a partner retires from a partnership and the amount of his share in the net partnership assets after deduction of liabilities and prior charges is determined on taking accounts, there is no element of transfer of interest in the partnership assets by…

ACIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai vs. Dinesh Parshuram Amin, Gujrat

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5427/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal

Section 2(47)

…t in the submission given to AO. The AO cannot ignore submissions given by appellant. 4. The legal position on partner's rights and consideration received on retirement is well settled by Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income- tax v. R. Lingmallu Raghukumar 247 ITR 801 (SC) that when a partner retires from a partnership what he receives is his share in the partnership which is worked out and realized and does not represent consideration received by him as a result of the extinguishment of his interest in the partnership assets. ITD 410 (Mum) (2008) in a similar case held that the revaluation of assets of partne…

ACIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai vs. Parashuram Maganlal Amin, Gujrat

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5426/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal

Section 2(47)

Anant B. Tawade, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6362/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6362/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Shri Anand B. Tawade, Ito – 17(3)(1), बनाम/ 106, Roop Rayon Mill Piramal Chambers, V. Compound, Lalbaug, Near Datt Mandir, Mumbai. Jijamata Nagar, Kalachowki, Mumbai – 400 033. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Acdpt 9937A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare (Sr.DR)

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)

…such money. It was submitted that there was no distribution of assets, but only payment of money. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai (1987) 165 ITR 166 (SC), CIT v. Lengmally Raghukumar (2001) 247 ITR 801 (SC). The assessee also relied upon the following judicial decisions:- 1) Addl. CIT v. Snt Mahenderpal Bhasin (1979) 117 ITR 26 (All). 2) CIT v. Bhupinder Singh Atwal (1981) 128 ITR 67 (Cal). 3) CIT v. Madanlal Bharqava (1980) 122 ITR 545 (All). 4) CIT v. Pate P H (1988) 171 ITR 128 (AP). 5) CIT v. Raghukumar (1983) 141 ITR 674 (AP) 6) Prashant…